Talk:Wolves and moose on Isle Royale

Verbatim from elsewhere? Need clarification on copyright

I get the feeling that this article is verbatim of an academic article of some sort. A Google search (normal, books, and scholar) didn't turn up anything. If you are the author of the work that this article draws upon, please respond here and let us know whether or not we have permission to use this text on Wikipedia. Thanks! --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The author clarified the copyright status of this article. It is an original report done for a school assignment and is otherwise unpublished. However, it contains no original research, and it cites all of its sources. I am satisfied that there is no outstanding copyright issue here. --Dachannien^Talk_Contrib 10:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article most certainly doesn't cite all its sources. For example, the claim in the introduction that the predator-prey relationship is unique. 23:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion

This article should I think include some details on the scientific study. Dates the research covers, names, the fact that the scientists are the only humans to overwinter in the park, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Visitor numbers vs other National Parks

The article used to say,

The remoteness of Isle Royale leads to it having fewer visitors in one year than Yellowstone National Park has in just one day.<ref name="isleroyalenp">Holliday, Michael E., and Grant H. Fenner. "Isle Royale National Park." [http://www.paddling.net/places/showReport.html?283 Paddling.Net]. 31 Aug. 2001. 18 May 2006</ref>

However, the source for this is not authoritative. According to NPS figures, Yellowstone received 3,066,580 visitors in 2008, which is an average of 8,378 per day (it was a leap year); Isle Royale received 14,038. Now, since the Yellowstone visitors will have been concentrated in the summer, rather than spread evenly through the year, I don't doubt that there was a day in 2008 on which 14,039 or more people visited Yellowstone. But, without a source that actually says that (or something from which that fact can be derived), we shouldn't be making the claim in the article. However, since Great Smoky Mountains National Park received an average of more than 24,000 visitors per day in 2008 (the only one with more than 13,000), I've altered the claim to that. Dricherby (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Old gray guy

Wonder if we could incorporate this news story or more preferably the academic papers behind it. [1] 64.134.168.97 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. North8000 (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The study group also puts out an annual report (pretty accessible) with a lot of detail on the wolf-moose situation. While a lot of it is too detailed for us, I think they are good stuff and one could even use the data from the few years of them to make some graphs versus time and the like. We do cite one of them, but from 2006.  :(